What legal claims did the plaintiffs try to use to hold the defendants liable for their water contamination? Why did they claim so many causes of action? What is the critical element that the plaintiffs have to prove to win any of their claims? Why were the plaintiffs unable to prove their case? What options do the plaintiffs have after this decision? What would you do? Guidelines One point for a complete original response to the prompt, and/or one point for a meaningful response or follow up question to classmates' posts

In this case, Baker vs. Anschuts, the plantiffs claimed that Anschuts violated nearly every tort law. These claims state that the defendant acted with negligence, provided a nuisance, was guilty of premises liability and trespass, violated New York State navigation law, acted under the premise of strict liability, violated New York State business law, and caused fear of future medical problems. In return, the plaintiff sought $150 million for each offense as well as punitive damages of $500 million, plus costs. Accordingly, all the plaintiffs’ claims were legally binding given that proof existed that the defendant breached his duty, did not act reasonably, broke the cause in fact clause, proved that the offense was reasonably foreseeable, and that real damages took place as a result. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the burden of causation could not be met in this case; though both the plaintiff and defendant held expert witnesses, the defendant’s isotope tests were more decisive than the plaintiff’s expert speculation.

I believe the options of the plaintiff are limited in this case because the standard of causation is difficult to meet. Subsequently, the plaintiff would need to find a scientist that could prove a link between the natural gas wells and the problems with the well water. An additional option might be convincing the state of New York, which might have considerably more resources at its disposal, that this is a state issue due to public nuisance.

 If I were in these circumstances my opinion on the matter would be dictated by the available science. If the science were unable to prove a direct causation, I would be forced to accept that one did not exist. That being said, I would probably exhaust all scientific and legal options before giving up.